(1st John 5:7 ) An Historical Account of Two Notable Corruptions of Scripture

 An Historical Account of Two Notable Corruptions of Scripture

An Historical Account of Two Notable Corruptions of Scripture is a dissertation by the English mathematician and scholar Isaac Newton. This was sent in a letter to John Locke on 14 November 1690. In fact, Newton may have been in dialogue with Locke about this issue much earlier. While living in France, Locke made a journal entry, dated 20 December 1679, where he indicates that while visiting the library at Saint-Germain-des-Prés he saw: [T]wo very old manuscripts of the New Testament, the newest of which was, as appeared by the date of it, at least 800 years old, in each of which 1 John, ch.V , ver. 7, was quite wanting, and the end of the eighth verse ran thus, "tres unum sunt;" in another old copy the seventh verse was, but with interlining; in another much more modern copy, ver. 7 was also, but differently from the old copy; and in two other old manuscripts, also, ver. 7 was quite out, but as I remember in all of them the end of the eighth verse was "tres unum sunt."

Various drafts and copies of the Two Notable Corruptions of Scripture and related material

Author: Isaac Newton

•Two Notable Corruptions of Scripture (part 1: ff. 1-41)

[Normalized Text]*⁰¹ [Diplomatic Text]

•Two Notable Corruptions of Scripture (part 2: ff. 43-48)

[Normalized Text]*⁰² [Diplomatic Text]

•Two Notable Corruptions of Scripture (part 4: ff. 70-83)

[Normalized Text ,here] [Diplomatic Text ,here ]

•Two Notable Corruptions of Scripture (part 5: ff. 85-101)

[Normalized Text, here ] [Diplomatic Text, here]

•Two Notable Corruptions of Scripture (part 6: ff. 104-5)

[Normalized Text, here] [Diplomatic Text, here]

•Two Notable Corruptions of Scripture (part 7: ff. 117-121)

[Normalized Text, here] [Diplomatic Text, here]

Metadata: 1690-91, c. 54,203 words

Source: Ms. 361(4), New College Library, Oxford, UK

Contents

ff. 2-41 'An historical account of two notable corruptions of Scripture in a Letter to a Friend', in English with Greek and Latin citations, c. 25,000 words. At the top of the first page, in Thomas Pellet's hand: 'No. 30'. Copy of two letters of 14 November 1690 written by Newton to John Locke on 1 John 5:7 and 1 Timothy 3:16 respectively: in this version they read as one continuous text. A crucial document for the study of Newton's theology, in particular his anti-Trinitarianism. It is a painstaking and extremely detailed collation of these two verses, both widely regarded as clear evidence for Trinitarianism, as they appear in surviving early Bibles in various languages and as they are quoted by various Fathers. Newton's conclusion is that the wording was altered, by accident or design, in the fourth or fifth century.

Locke sent a copy of the original letters to Jean Le Clerc. On 11 April 1691 Le Clerc suggested that the original author read Simon's Histoire critique du texte du Nouveau Testament (Rotterdam, 1689), which Newton did, leading him to incorporate new information from Simon and from Burnet's Travels into this version of the text. The document was published in 1754 from a manuscript in the Remonstrants' Library and then more accurately by Horsley in 1785 (Horsley, 5: 493-550). Printed from this manuscript in NC, 3: 83-129. Cf. the expanded Latin translation of the first letter in Yahuda Var. 1 Ms. 20.

ff. 43-8 Copy of part of the above, in another hand, c. 2,500 words. Probably a printer's copy made in preparation for Horsley's edition.

ff. 49v-68 'The third Letter.' First version (draft A), in Newton's hand, of another letter sent to Locke soon after the earlier texts, in English with Latin and Greek citations, c. 8,000 words. This deals with other allegedly Trinitarian passages in Scripture which Newton believed to be corrupt. Printed in NC, 3: 129-44.

ff. 70-83 Second version (draft B), with a few changes, of the 'Third Letter', begun by Newton and completed by Conduitt (ff. 80-3), apparently copying from draft A. Possibly connected with Hopton Haynes's translation of the letter into Latin in 1709. In the section written by Newton, the variant readings between drafts A and B are all noted in Conduitt's hand on the facing pages.

ff. 85-101 Copy of draft B of the 'Third letter' in Horsley's hand, including copies of Conduitt's notes of the variant readings.

ff. 104-5 'Another Letter Written to a friend who had perused the former Letters': revision of the beginning and end of the 'Third Letter'. Newton's hand, c. 800 words. Printed in NC, 3: 144-6.

ff. 107-8 Much neater copy of the above in another hand.

f. 109 Partial copy in the same hand.

ff. 112-14 Another copy in Horsley's hand.

ff. 117-21 Earlier drafts of parts of the first letter, in Newton's hand, c. 5,000 words.

This bundle also contains another 117 leaves of later material relating to Newton and Newtoniana, including a codicil to Catherine Conduitt's will concerning his papers (f. 139, 26 June 1737, printed in Brewster (1855), 2: 341), 18th-19th century correspondence of the Ekinses, Horsley, David Brewster and others about the whereabouts and ownership of the papers, and press cuttings about the erection of the Newton monument in Grantham in 1858 and the publication of Brewster's biography (1855).

Notes

New College Mss. 361.1-4 comprise the Ekins papers given to New College in 1872.

~•~•~•~•~•~

*⁰¹ 

<1r>

No 30 An historical account

of two notable corruptions of Scripture,

in a Letter to a Friend.

Sir

Since the discourses of some late writers have raised in you a curiosity, of knowing the truth of that text of Scripture concerning the testimony of the three in heaven 1 Iohn 5.7: I have here sent you an account of what the reading has been in all ages, & by {what} steps it has been changed, so far as I can hitherto determine by records. And I have done it the more freely because to you who understand the many abuses which they of the Roman Church have put upon the world, it will scarce be ungratefull to be convinced of one more than is commonly believed. For althô the more learned & {clear} sighted men (as Luther, Erasmus, Bullinger Grotius & some others) could not dissemble their knowledge, yet the generality are fond of the place for its making against heresy. But whilst we exclaim against the pious frauds of the Roman Church, & make it a part of our religion to detect & renounce all things of that kind: we must acknowledge it a greater crime in us to favour such practises, then in the Papists we so much blame on that account. For they act according to their religion but we contrary to ours. In the eastern nations, & for a long time in the western the faith subsisted without this text & it is rather a danger to religion then an advantage to make it now lean upon a bruised reed. There cannot be better service done to the truth then to purge it of things spurious: & therefore knowing your prudence & calmnesse of temper, I am confident I shal not offend you by telling you my mind plainly: especially since 'tis no article of faith, no point of discipline, nothing but a criticism concerning a text of scripture which I am going to write about.

The history of the corruption in short is this. First some of the Latines interpreted the spirit water & blood of the Father, Son & Holy ghost to prove them one. Then Ierome for the same end inserted the Trinity in expres words into his Version. Out of him the Africans {began to allege} it against the Vandals about 64 years after his death. Afterwards the Latines noted his variations in the margins of their books & thence it began at length to creep into the text in transcribing, & that chiefly in the twelft & following Centuries when revived by the Schoolmen. And when printing came it crept <2r> out of the Latine into the printed Greek against the authority of all the greek MSS & ancient Versions, & from the Venetian presses it went soon after into Grece. Now the truth of this history will appear by considering the arguments on both sides.

The arguments alleged for the testimony of the three in heaven are the authorities of Cyprian, Athanasius & Ierome, & of many greek manuscripts & almost all the Latine ones.

Cyprians words run thus. a.[1] The Lord saith, I and the Father am one, & again of the Father & Son & Holy Ghost it is written. And these three are one. The Socinians here deale too injuriously with Cyprian while they would have this place corrupted: for Cyprian in another place repeats almost the same thing b[2] If, saith he, [one baptized amongst hereticks] be made the temple of God, tell me I pray of what God? . . . . If of the Holy ghost, since these three are one, how can the Holy ghost be reconciled to him who is the enemy of either the Father or the Son. These places of Cyprian being in my opinion genuine seem so apposite to prove the testimony of the three in heaven, that I should never have suspected a mistake in it could I but have reconciled it with the ignorance I meet with of this reading in the next age amongst the Latines of both Afric & Europe as well as amongst the Greeks. For had it been in Cyprian's Bible, the Latines of the next age when all the world was engaged in disputing about the Trinity & all arguments that could be thought of were diligently sought out & daily brought upon the stage, could never have been ignorant of a text, which in our age now the dispute is over is chiefly insisted upon. In reconciling this difficulty I consider therefore that the only words of the text quoted by Cyprian in both places are, And these three are one: which words may belong to the eighth verse as well as to the seventh. ffor c[3] Eucherius Bishop of Lion in France & contemporary to S. Austin, reading the text without the seventh verse tells us that many then understood the Spirit, the Water & the Blood to signify the Trinity. And d[4] S. Austin <3r> is one of those many as you may see in his third book against Maximus, where he tells us that the Spirit is the Father, for God is a spirit, the water the Holy Ghost, for he is the water which Christ gives to them that thirst, & the blood the Son for the Word was made flesh. Now if it was the opinion of many in the western Churches of those times that the spirit, the water & the blood signified the Father, the Son, & the Holy Ghost, its plain that the testimony of the three in heaven in expresse words was not yet crept into their books, {&} even without this testimony it was obvious for Cyprian or any man else of that opinion to say of the Father & Son & Holy Ghost: it is written And these three are one. And that this was Cyprian's meaning, e[5] Facundus, an African Bishop in the sixt Century is my author. For he tells us expresly that Cyprian in the above mentioned place understood it so, interpreting the water, spirit & blood to be the Father, Son & Holy Ghost & thence affirming that Iohn said of the Father, Son & Holy Ghost, These three are one. This at least may be gathered from this passage of Facundus, that some in those early ages interpreted Cyprian after this manner. Nor do I understand how any of those many who took the spirit water & blood for a type of the Trinity, or any man else who was ignorant of the testimony of the three in heaven (as the Churches in the times of the Arian controversy generally were) could understand him otherwise. And even Cyprian's own words do plainly make for this interpretation. For he does not say, the Father, the Word & the Holy Ghost as 'tis now in the seventh verse, but the Father & Son & Holy Ghost as 'tis in Baptism, the place from whence they used at first to derive the Trinity. If it be pretended that the words cited by Cyprian are taken out of the seventh verse rather then out of the eighth because he reads not Hi tres in unum sunt but hi tres unum sunt I answer that the Latines generally read hi tres unum sunt as well in the eighth verse as in the seventh as you may see in the newly cited places of S. Austin & Facundus, & those of Ambrose, Pope Leo, Beda & Cassiodorus which follow, & in the present Vulgar Latine. So then the testimony of Cyprian respects the eighth, or at least is as applicable to that verse as to the seventh, & therefore is of no force for proving the truth of the seventh: but on the contrary for disproving it we have here the testimonies of Facundus, S. Austin, Eucherius & those many others whom Eucherius mentions. {For} if those of that age had met with it in their books they would <5r> never have understood the spirit the water & the blood to be the three persons of the Trinity in order to prove them one God.

And what is said of the testimony of Tertullian & Cyprian may be much more said of that in the feigned disputation of Athanasius with Arius at Nice. For there the words cited are only καὶ ὁι τρεις τοἕν ἐισιν these three are one, & they are taken out of the seventh verse without naming the persons of the Trinity before them. # < insertion from f 4v > # For the Greeks interpreted the spirit water & blood of the Trinity as well as the Latines, as is manifest by the annotations they made on this text in the margins of some of their manuscripts. For a[6] Father Simon informs us that one of the MSS in the Library of the King of ffrance marked Num. 2247 over against these words [7] Ὅτι ρεις ἐισιν δι μαρτυρουντες ἐν τη γ{ο} τὸ πνευμα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καί τὸ ἁιμα For there are three that beare record [in earth] the spirit the water & the blood: there is this remark τουτέστι τὸ πνευμα τὸ ἅγιον καὶ ὁ πατὴρ καὶ ἀυτὸς ἑαντου That is, the holy Ghost & the Father & he of himself. And in the same copy over against these words καί {&} τρεις ἐις τὸ ἕν ἐισι & these three are one this note is added. τουτὲστι μία θεότης ἑις θεός. That is, one Deity one God. This MS is about 500 years old. Also in the margin of one of the MSS in Mons Colberts Library Num. 871, as the same Father tells us there is the like remark. For besides these words ἐις θεος μία θεοτης One God, one Godhead; there are added μαρτυρία του θεου του πατρὸς καὶ του ἁγίου πνεύματος The testimony of God the father & of the Holy Ghost. These marginal notes sufficiently shew how the Greeks used to apply this text to the Trinity & by consequence how the author of that disputation is to be understood. But I should tell you also that that Disputation was not writ by Athanasius but by a later Author & therefore as a spurious piece uses not to be insisted upon. < text from f 5r resumes > And besides, this disputation was not writ by Athanasius but by a later Author, & therfore as a spurious piece uses not to be much insisted upon.

Now this mystical application of the spirit water & blood to signify the Trinity, seems to me to have given occasion to some body either fraudulently to insert the testimony of the three in heaven in expresse words into the text for proving the Trinity, or else to note it in the margin of his book by way of interpretation, whence it might afterwards creep into the text in transcribing. And the first upon record that inserted it is Ierome, if the f[8] Preface to the Canonical Epistles which pass under his name are his. For whilst he composed not a new Translation of the new Testament but only corrected the ancient Vulgar Latine (as learned men think) & amongst his emendations ( writen perhaps at first in the margin of his book) he inserted this testimony {and complains} in the said Preface how he was thereupon accused by some of the Latines for falsifying the scripture, & makes answer that former Latine Translators had much erred from the faith in putting only the spirit water & blood in their edition & omitting the testimony of the three in heaven whereby the Catholick faith is established by this defense he seems to say that he corrected the vulgar latine Translation by the original Greek, & this is the great testimony which the Text relies upon.

But whilst he confesses it was not in the Latine before, & accuses former Translators of falsifying the scriptures in omitting it, he satisfies us that it has crept into the Latine since his time, & so cuts off all the authority of the present Vulgar Latine for justifying it. And whilst he was accused by his contemporaries of falsifying the scriptures in inserting it, this accusation also confirms that he altered the public reading. For had the reading been dubious before he made it so, no man would have charged him with falsification for following either part. Also whilst upon this accusation he recommends the alteration by its usefulnesse for establishing the catholic faith, this renders it the more suspected by discovering both the designe of his making it, & the ground of his hoping for successe. However seing he was thus accused by his contemporaries, it gives us just occasion to examin the businesse between him & his accusers. And so he being called to the barr, we are not to lay stresse upon his own testimony for himself, (for no man is a witnesse in his own cause,) but laying aside all prejudice <6r> we ought according to the ordinary rules of justice to examin the businesse between him & his accusers by other witnesses.

They that have been conversant in his writings observe a strange liberty he takes in asserting things. Many notable instances of this he has left us in composing those very fabulous lives of Paul & Hilarion, not to mention what he has written upon other occasions. Whence Erasmus said of him that he was in affirming things g[9] frequently violent & impudent & often contrary to himself. But I accuse him not. It's possible he might be sometimes imposed upon or through inadvertency commit a mistake. Yet since his contemporaries accused him, it's just we should lay aside the prejudice of his great name & hear the cause impartially between them

Now the witnesses between them are partly the ancient Translators of the scriptures into various languages, partly the writers of his own age & of the ages next before & after him & partly the scribes who have copied out the greek Manuscripts of the scriptures in all ages. And all three are against him. For by the unanimous evidence of all these, it will appear that the testimony of the three in heaven was wanting in the Greek Manuscripts from whence Ierome, or whoever was the author of that Preface to the Canonical Epistles, pretends to have borrowed it.

The ancient Interpreters which I cite as witnesses against him are chiefly the Authors of the ancient Vulgar Latin of the Syriac & of the Ethiopic versions. For as he tells us that the Latines omitted the testimony of the three in heaven in their version before his time, so in the Syriac & Ethiopic Versions (both which by Walton's account of them are much ancienter then Ierome's time, being the Versions which the oriental & Ethiopic nations received from the beginning & generally used as the Latines did the vulgar Latine) that testimony is wanting to this day: & the authors of these three most ancient most famous & most received versions by omitting it are concurrent witnesses that they found it wanting in the original greek Manuscripts of their times. Tis wanting also in other ancient versions, as in the Egyptian Arabic published in Walton's Polyglott, in k[10] the Armenian used ever since Chrysostom's age by the Armenian nations & in the Illyrican of Cyrillus used in Rascia, Bul <7r> garia Moldavia Ruscia Muscovy & other countries which use the Sclavonick tongue. In a l[11] copy of this version printed at Ostrobe in Volkinia in the year 1581, I have seen it wanting, & one m[12] Camillus relates the same thing out of ancient manuscripts of this Version seen by him. Father Simon n[13] notes it wanting also in a certain Version of the French Church, which (saith he) is at least a thousand years old & which was published by F. {Mabillon} a Benedictine Monck. Nor do I know of any Version wherein it's extant except the modern vulgar Latin & such modern versions of the western nations as have been influenced by it. So then by the unanimous consent of all the ancient & faithful Interpreters we have hitherto met with (who doubtless made use of the best Manuscripts they could get) the testimony of the three in heaven was not anciently in the Greek.

And that it was neither in the ancient Versions nor in the Greek but was wholy unknown to the first Churches is most certain by an argument hinted above, namely that in all that vehement universal & lasting controversy about the Trinity in Ieromes time & both before & long enough after it: this text of the three in heaven was never thought of. Tis now in every bodies mouth & acccounted the main text for the business & would have been so then had it been in their books & yet it is not once to be met with in all the Disputes, Epistles, Orations & other writings of the Greeks & Latines (Alexander of Alexandria, Athanasius the Council of Sardica, Basil, Nazianzen, Nyssen, Epiphanius, Chrysostom, Cyril, Theodoret, Hilary, Ambrose, Austin, Victorinus Afer, Philastrius Brixiensis, Phæbadius Agennensis, Gregorius Bæticus, Faustinus Diaconus, Paschasius, Arnobius junior, Cerealis & others) in the times of those controversies; no not in Ierome himself if his version & Preface to the Canonical epistles be excepted. The writings of those times were very many & copious & there is no argument or text of scripture to this purpose which they do not urge again & again. That of Iohn's Gospel, I & the father am one is every where inculcated but this of the three in heaven & their being one is no where to be met with till at length when the ignorant ages came on it began by degrees to creep into the Latine copies out of Ierome's Version. So far are they from citing the testimony of the three in heaven, that on the contrary as often as they have occasion to mention the place they omit it, & that as well after Ierome's age as in & before it. For Hesychius <8r> cites the place thus. [14] Audi Ioannem dicentem tria sunt qui testimonium præbent & tres unum sunt, spiritus et sanguis et aqua. The words in terra he omits, which is never done but in copies where the testimony of the three in heaven is wanting. Cassiodorus, or who ever was the author of the latin Version of the discourse of Clemens Alexandrinus on these Epistles of St Iohn, reads it thus. [15] Quia tres sunt qui testificantur spiritus et aqua et sanguis et hi tres unum sunt. Beda in his commentary on the place reads it thus: Et spiritus est qui testificatur quoniam Christus est veritas. Quoniam tres sunt qui testimonium dant in terra spiritus aqua et sanguis & tres unum sunt. Si testimonium. &c But here the words in terra so far as I can gather by his commentary on this text have been inserted by some later hand. The author of the first Epistle ascribed to Pope Eusebius reads it as Beda doth, omitting only the words in terra. And if the authority of Popes be valuable, Pope Leo the great, in his tenth Epistle thus cites the place. Et spiritus est qui testificatur, quoniam spiritus est veritas. Quia tres sunt qui testimonium dant, spiritus et aqua et sanguis et hi tres unum sunt. Ambrose in the sixt Chapter of his first book de spiritu sancto disputing for the unity of the three persons, saith, Hi tres unum sunt Ioannes dixit, Aqua sanguis et spiritus. Vnum in mysterio non in natura. This is all he could find of the text while he was disputing about the Trinity, & therefore he proves the unity of the persons by the mystical unity of the spirit water & blood, interpreting these of the Trinity with Cyprian & others. Yea in the 11th chapter of his third book, he fully recites the Text thus. [16]Per aquam et sanguinem venit Christus Iesus non solum in aqua sed in aqua et sanguine: et spiritus testimonium quoniam spiritus est veritas. Quia tres sunt testes spiritus aqua et sanguis, et hi tres unum sunt in Christo Iesu. The like readings of ffacundus, Eucherius & S. Austin you have in the places cited above. These are the Latines as late or later then Ierome. ffor Ierome did not prevail with the Churches of his own times to receive the testimony of the three in heaven. And for them to know his Version & not receive this testimony was in effect to condemn it.

And as for the Greeks, Cyril of Alexandria reads the text without this testimony in the 14th book of his The <9r> saurus chap. 5, & again in his first book de fide ad Reginas a little after the middle. And so doth Oecumenius a later Greek in his commentary on this place of S. Iohn's Epistle. Also Didymus Alexandrinus in his commentary on the same place reads the spirit water & blood without mentioning the three in heaven, & so he doth in his book of the Holy Ghost where he seems to omit nothing that he could find for his purpose: & so doth Gregory Nazianzen in his 37th Oration concerning the Holy Ghost, & also Nicetas in his Commentary on Gregory Nazianzen's 44th Oration. And here it is further observable that the Eusebians contended that the Father Son & Holy Ghost were not to be connumerated because things of a different kind, & Nazianzen & Nicetas answer that they might be connumerated because St Iohn connumerates three things not consubstantial, the spirit the water & the blood. By the objection of the Eusebians it appears that the testimony of the three in heaven was not in their books, & by the answer of the Catholicks it is as evident that it was not in theirs. ffor while they answer by instancing.... (Click here to continue)

*⁰² <43r>

An Historical Account

of two notable Corruptions of a Scripture in a letter to a Friend

Sir

Since the discourses of some late writers have raised in you a curiosity of knowing the truth of that text of Scripture concerning the testimony of the three in Heaven 1 Iohn V.7, I have here sent you an account of what the reading has been in all ages, & by what steps it has been changed, so far as I can hitherto determine by records. And I have done it the more freely, because to You, who understand the many abuses which they of the Roman Church have put upon the world, it will scarce be ungratefull, to be convinced of one more than is commonly believed. For altho' the more learned & quicksighted men, as Luther, Erasmus, Bullinger, Grotius & some others, could not dissemble their knowledge, yet the generality are fond of the place for its making against Heresy. But whilst we exclaim against the pious frauds *⁰³ of the Roman Church, & make it a part of our religion to detect & renounce all things of that kind; we must acknowledge it a greater crime in us to favour such practises than in the Papists we so much blame on that account. For they act according to their religion but we contrary to ours. In the Eastern Nations, & for a long time in the Western, the Faith subsisted without this text, & it is rather a danger to religion than an advantage to make it now lean upon a bruised reed. There can not be better service done to the truth, than to purge it of things spurious. And therefore knowing your prudence & calmness of temper, I am confident I shall not offend <44r> you by telling you my mind plainly: especially since 'tis no article of Faith, no point of discipline, nothing but a criticism concerning a text of Scripture, which I am going to write about.

The History of the Corruption in short is this. First some of the Latines interpreted the Spirit, water, & blood of the Father, Son & Holy Ghost to prove them one. Then Ierome for the same reason \end/ inserted the Trinity in express words in his Version. Out of him the Africans began to alledge \allege/ it against the Vandals about 64 years after his death. Afterwards the Latins noted his variations in the margins of their books, & thence it began at length to creep in to the text in transcribing, & that chiefly in the twelfth & following centuries, when disputing was revived by the Schoolmen. And when printing came up, it crept out of the Latin into the printed Greek, against the authority of all the greek MSS & ancient versions, & from the Venetian presses it went soon after into Greece. Now the truth of this history will appear by considering the arguments on both sides.

The Arguments alleged for the testimony of the three in heaven are the authorities of Cyprian, Athanasius & Ierome, & of many Greek manuscripts & almost all the Latin ones.

Cyprians words run thus. (a)[1] "The Lord saith I & the Father are one, & again of the Father & son & Holy Ghost it is written; And these three are one." The Socinians here deal too injuriously with Cyprian, while they wh \would/ have this place corrupted. For Cyprian in another place repeats almost the same thing (b)[2] "If, saith he, [one baptized amongst heretics] be made the Temple of God, tell me I pray of what God: – If of the Holy Ghost; since these three are one, how can the Holy Ghost be reconciled to him who is the enemy of either the Father or the Son." These places of Cyprian, being in my opinion genuine, seem so apposite to prove the testimony of the three in heaven, that I should never have sus <45r> pected a mistake in it, could I but have reconciled it, with the ignorance I meet with of this reading in the next age amongst the Latins of both Afric & Europe, as well as amongst the Greeks. For had it been in Cyprians Bible, the Latins of the next age, when all the world was engaged in disputing about the Trinity, & all arguments that could be thought of were diligently sought out & daily brought upon the stage, could never have been ignorant of a text, which in our age, now the dispute is over, is chiefly insisted upon. In reconciling this difficulty, I consider therefore that the only words of the text quoted, by Cyprian in both places are, And these three are one; which words may belong to the eighth verse as well as to the seventh. For (c)[3] Eucherius Bishop of Lion in France, & contemporary to St. Austin, reading the text without the seventh verse, tells us that many then understood the Spirit, the Water & the Blood to signify the Trinity. And (d)[4] S. Austin is one of those many, as you may see in his third book against Maximus: where he tells us that the Spirit is the Father, for God is a spirit; the Water, the Holy Ghost, for he is the Water which Christ gives to them that thirst, & the Blood the Son, for the word was made Flesh. Now if it was the opinion of many in the western Churches of those times that the Spirit, the Water & the Blood signified the Father, the Son & the Holy Ghost, its plain that the Testimony of the three in Heaven in expresse words was not yet crept into their books. And even without this testimony it was obvious for Cyprian, or any man else of that opinion, to say the Father & Son & Holy Ghost, it is written And these three are one. And that this was Cyprians meaning, (e)[5] Facundus, an African Bishop in the sixth century is my author. For he tells us expressly that Cyprian in the abovementioned place understood it so; interpreting the water, spirit & blood to be the Father, Son, & Holy Ghost, & thence affirming that Iohn said of the Father, Son, & Holy Ghost, These Three are one. This at least <46r> {may} {follows}|be gathe|red from this passage of Facundus, that some in those early ages interpreted Cyprian after that manner. Nor do I understand how any of those many who took for {sic} the Spirit Water & Blood for a type of the Trinity, or any man else who was ignorant of the testimony of the Three in Heaven (as the Churches in the time of the Arian controversy generally were) could understand him otherwise. And even Cyprians own words do plainly make for this interpretation. For he does not say, The Father The Word & the Holy Ghost, as 'tis now in the seventh verse, but the Father & Son & Holy Ghost as 'tis in Baptism, the place from whence they used at first to derive the Trinity. If it be pretended that the words cited by Cyprian are taken out of the seventh verse rather than out of the eighth, because he reads not Hi tres in unum sunt, but Hi tres unum sunt; I answer, that the Latines generally read Hi tres in unum sunt as well in the eighth verse as in the seventh, as you may see in the newly cited places of Austin & Facundus, & those of Ambrose, Pope Leo, Beda & Cassiodorus which follow, & in the present Vulgar Latin. So then the testimony of Cyprian respects the eighth, or at least is \as/ applicable to that verse as to the seventh, & therefore it is of no force for proving the truth of the seventh. But on the contrary, for disproving it, we have here the testimonies of Facundus, S. Austin, Eucherius & those many others whom Eucherius mentions. For if those of that age had met with it in their books, they would never have understood the Spirit the Water & the Blood to be the three Persons of the Trinity in order to prove them One God.

see the printed Copy

<47r>

I have now given you an account of the corruption of the text: the sum of which is this. The difference between the Greek of the Ancient Versions puts it past dispute, that either the Greeks have corrupted their MSS, or the Latins Syrians & Ethiopians their Versions. And its more reasonable to lay the fault upon the Greeks than upon the other three, for these considerations. It was easier for one nation to do it than for three to conspire. It was easier to change a Letter or two in the Greek than six words in the Latin. In the Greek the sense is obscure, in the Versions clear. It was agreeable to the Interest of the Greeks to make the change; but against the Interest of the three nations to do it: and men are never false to their interest. The greek reading was unknown in the times of the Arian controversy; but that of the Versions, then in use amongst both Greeks & Latins. Some Greek MSS render the Greek reading dubious; but those of the Versions hitherto collated agree. There are no signs of corruption in the versions hitherto discovered: but in the Greek we have shewed you particularly when, on what occasion, & by whom, the text was corrupted.

I know not whether it be worth the while to tell you, that in the printed works of Athanasius there is an Epistle, De Incarnatione Verbi, which reads Θεὸς. For this Epistle relates to the Nestorian heresy, & so was written by a much later author than Athanasius, & may also possibly have been since corrected, like the works of Chrysostom & Cyrill, by the corrected text of St. Pauls Epistles. I have had so short \a/ time to run my eye over Authors, that I can not tell whether upon further search, more passages about this falsation may not <48r> hereafter occurr pertinent to the argument. But if there should, I presume it will not be difficult, now the falsation is thus far laid open, to know what construction to put upon them, & how to apply them.

You see what freedom I have used in this discourse, & I hope you will interpret it candidly. For if the ancient Churches in debating & deciding the greatest mysteries of religion, knew nothing of these two texts; I understand not, why we should be so fond of them, now the debates are over. And whilst its the character of an honest man to be pleased, & of a man of interest to be troubled at the detection of frauds, & of both to run most in to those passions when the detection is made plainest: I hope this letter will to one of your integrity prove so much the the more acceptable, as it makes a further discovery than you have hitherto met with in Commentators.

*⁰³ What does "Pious Fraud" mean?

Definition and Historical Context

"Pious fraud" typically refers to the concept of deliberately deceiving others for what one perceives as a noble or religiously beneficial goal. Throughout history, certain individuals or groups have been accused of manufacturing or exaggerating doctrines, miracles, relics, or narratives to strengthen faith or defend particular theological positions. Examples in church history include forged documents like the “Donation of Constantine” in the medieval period, which attempted to bolster papal authority, and other spurious writings that aimed to boost religious devotion or influence.

In essence, “pious fraud” presupposes the idea that falsehoods may be justified if they serve a “higher truth.” Yet Scripture consistently rejects the notion of lying as a valid means to promote spiritual ends, emphasizing truth and integrity as foundational to faith.

Biblical Principles on Truth and Integrity

Despite some arguments suggesting that falsehoods might highlight God’s truth (cf. Romans 3:7), biblical teaching universally condemns deceit. For example:

• Exodus 20:16: “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.”

• 2 Corinthians 4:2: “Instead, we have renounced secret and shameful ways; we do not practice deceit, nor do we distort the word of God…”

• John 17:17: “Sanctify them by the truth; Your word is truth.”

From the outset of Scripture, the prohibition of lying and bearing false witness appears repeatedly. This principle of truthfulness extends to the proclamation of the faith itself. Even if a certain claim might allegedly serve a pious purpose, the biblical mandate to speak truth remains paramount.

Condemnation of Fraud in Early Christian Witness

Accusations of “pious fraud” often emerge regarding miraculous accounts or scriptural narratives. However, early Christian sources and historical records portray a community that had every reason not to invent stories for personal gain. Early believers endured persecution, loss of property, social ostracism, and even martyrdom for proclaiming the resurrection (cf. Acts 7:54-60). Fabricating miracles or doctrines would have needlessly endangered them for a false claim.

Moreover, archaeological finds, such as the Dead Sea Scrolls, underscore a careful preservation process of Old Testament texts, reinforcing their reliability and showcasing minimal variants over centuries. The consistent testimony of the Gospel manuscripts-further validated by early non-biblical sources like the writings of Josephus and Tacitus-highlights the authenticity of the events recorded, rather than the product of fraudulent invention.

Scriptural Unity and Reliability

The very notion of a “pious fraud” runs counter to the uniform witness of Scripture, which upholds God's unchangeable nature and underscores honesty:

• Titus 1:2: “…in the hope of eternal life, which God, who cannot lie, promised before time began.”

• 2 Timothy 3:16: “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for instruction, for conviction, for correction, and for training in righteousness…”

If the Author of life and truth does not lie (cf. Numbers 23:19), His word-and the message carried by His people-must reflect truth rather than contrivance.

Distinction Between True Miracles and Counterfeit Claims

Miracles and divine acts are recorded in Scripture to reveal God’s power, not to grant advantage to those proclaiming them. For instance, in Acts 3, the healing of a man crippled from birth occurs seriously and publicly, subjected to scrutiny by onlookers. Equally, accounts like the resurrection of Jesus (1 Corinthians 15:3-8) exhibit multiple eyewitnesses, including critics of the movement and those willing to be put to death for their testimony. Falsifying such events would have been nearly impossible in the presence of hostile witnesses, let alone beneficial.

While “pious fraud” accusations occasionally surface when modern-day miracles are reported, the biblical criterion remains: all claims must be tested (1 John 4:1) according to God’s revealed truth rather than accepted blindly or rejected without discernment.

Philosophical and Behavioral Considerations

From a behavioral and philosophical standpoint, the concept of “pious fraud” resonates with the human temptation to justify unethical means for a perceived higher good. Yet Scripture redirects human reasoning, reminding believers that God’s power does not depend on deception:

• Romans 3:8: “Why not say, as some slanderously claim that we say, ‘Let us do evil that good may result’? Their condemnation is deserved.”

Adopting unethical practices to defend or spread righteousness undermines the very essence of true spiritual transformation. Authentic faith stands upon truth, reflecting the character of a holy God in word and deed.

Authentic Faith Versus Manufactured Claims

Historical anecdotes and archaeological investigations-in addition to the internal witness of multiple New Testament manuscripts-suggest that believers throughout time did not need to fabricate events to establish the faith. In the pursuit of spreading the good news, the apostles and early missionaries consistently pointed to verifiable realities, grounded in historical events (cf. Luke 1:1-4).

All four Gospels and other New Testament writings exhibit consistent attestation of Christ’s life, death, and resurrection, corroborated by external testimony of ancient Rome and beyond. Claims of “pious fraud” break down under the sheer volume of manuscript evidence validating the biblical record.

Conclusion

The term "pious fraud" can be succinctly defined as the intentional use of deception to achieve a religious or otherwise noble end. Though it has been alleged in various periods of history, the overarching testimony of Scripture stands in direct opposition to any fraud, reaffirming the sanctity and necessity of truth in all matters.

Since the God of Scripture is a God of truth, any notion of condoning fraud-even under the banner of piety-contradicts His character. Biblical and historical records indicate that legitimate faith is bolstered by verifiable facts, eyewitness accounts, and the consistent reliability of the inspired Word, rather than by any fabricated story or falsified claim.